DADT repeal wins!

By
Greg Sargent

In a historic victory for the military, the Senate Dem leadership, the White House, and the civil rights of embattled gay and lesbian service-members -- and in a massive rebuke to John McCain, Mitch McConnell and the GOP Senate minority's efforts to maintain legalized discrimination in defiance of common sense and decency -- the Senate just cast a key vote in favor of the stand-alone bill to repeal don't ask don't tell.

Seventeen years after DADT passed into law, the vote all but ensures that its repeal will become a reality before the end of the year. The vote passed by 63-33, with moderate GOPers like Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe voting Yes.

First of all, major props are due to Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, President Obama, gay rights groups, and pro-repeal bloggers and commentators, all of whom played different but interlocking roles to make this happen. A rundown:

Joe Lieberman:

Lieberman was tireless in his efforts to cajole the handful of GOP moderates to come on board, despite extraordinary pressure on them to maintain GOP unity and block the measure. Lieberman prodded the process along with well-timed public statements, laying down a road-map for the Dem leadership to follow that led to success.

Lieberman also played an important role as a public counterbalance to John McCain, whose quixotic, erratic and desperate efforts to stall and defeat repeal might have commanded more public respect, were it not for Lieberman's high-profile campaign. Lieberman's independent status and Beltway reputation as a hawk made him perfect for the lead role in undercutting McCain's arguments. He succeeded in doing this in scores of TV interviews and at the Senate hearings, where he cross-examined military leaders inclined against repeal and got them to acknowledge that they could live with repeal if it were implemented by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. In a sense, this has been an old-school epic battle between two senators. Lieberman won.

Harry Reid:

Reid, too, deserves enormous credit for helping shepherd DADT repeal through the Senate. Though watching his efforts was one heck of a roller-coaster ride, in retrospect it's clear that he handled this in very shrewd fashion. Before the vote on the defense authorization bill containing DADT repeal, which the GOP successfully blocked, Reid made a whole range of concessions to GOP moderates, bringing them to the brink of casting a Yes vote.

When it became clear that Susan Collins's procedural demands risked throwing the lame-duck session into chaos, Reid's decision to fast-track the vote at that time was roundly criticized. In retrospect, it turns out this move allowed moderates the room to register their procedural objections with a first-round No vote. As Reid knew, he could then schedule a second, stand-alone vote, giving the moderates a bit more time and maneuvering room -- and another series of private meetings with military leaders -- to come around to the Yes camp. It's hard to know whether Reid originally intended to do this -- or whether he only did it under pressure -- but he did it.

And Reid was right to schedule the DADT vote before getting New START resolved -- again under heavy pressure, but again, he did it -- forging forward despite GOP threats that so doing could scuttle the START treaty.

The White House:

Finally, the White House. Obama had been criticized for months on don't ask don't tell, with advocates complaining that his administration aggressively defended DADT in court and that he wasn't doing enough to rally the Senate to pass repeal. But the botton line is that the White House did everything possible to create the political climate necessary to make this happen. The Pentagon report and the testimony by Robert Gates -- and his public round of interviews calling on Congress to pass repeal for the good of the military -- were major game-changers.

Also: For all the criticism of the Obama tax deal, today's victory stands as partial vindication of his strategy. Getting the tax deal wrapped up early made the time for repeal, with only days left in the lame-duck session.

This is an important victory for the White House in another way. It will quiet all the talk about Obama's supposed "triangulating," because it demonstrates -- for the time being, anyway -- that even as the White House sees a need to trade away some core liberal priorities to compromise with Repubilcans, Obama seems to want to bring the left along with him, to whatever degree he can. This will make it tougher to argue that Obama's strategy is to deliberately alienate the left in order to win back the middle of the country.

This moment in the Senate will take its place in the history books alongside other ground-breaking civil rights votes, and stands as an important reminder that as broken as our system seems at times, progress towards a more just and inclusive society is still possible.

Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend. By ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay. And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.

As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known. And I join the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the overwhelming majority of service members asked by the Pentagon, in knowing that we can responsibly transition to a new policy while ensuring our military strength and readiness.

I want to thank Majority Leader Reid, Senators Lieberman and Collins and the countless others who have worked so hard to get this done. It is time to close this chapter in our history. It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

Harry Reid deserves credit? Come on! The votes were there all year, and repeal had 65-80% support in polls. Why in the world didn't the Democratic leadership schedule the standalone vote *before* the election, to split the GOP base from independents, instead of insisting upon running on unpopular enormous spending bills?

It's as dumb as Sanders of Vermont wasting an entire day of a lame duck session when the next Congress will be less favorable to his views.

"The votes were there all year, and repeal had 65-80% support in polls. Why in the world didn't the Democratic leadership schedule the standalone vote before the election, to split the GOP base from independents, instead of insisting upon running on unpopular enormous spending bills?"

You still don't get how this was put together, obviously. A lot was contingent on getting the military leadership on board and providing support. They asked for the vote to wait until their report was issued. That was released on Nov. 30, AFTER the elections. That report is was gave the moderates the basis to support the legislation. This was an excellent strategy. STRATEGY, not tactics, wins.

Good wrap up but I think Collins deserves to be singled out for praise. She alone, among Republicans, voted to move the bill out of committee, actively advocated for repeal, helped bring along Snowe and others, and made it difficult for McConnell, Demint and Repub leadership to continue stalling.

For all the bumps in the road and high dungeon in the last two years, does everybody realize how rare it is to see historic legislation pass and how we're starting to get used to it happening? Something is working somewhere.

"In a historic victory for the military, . . . discrimination in defiance of common sense and decency . . .."

That is seriously deranged. When will the reeducation classes begin to stop military personnel from using "gay" as an epithet?

Dems just flung one last handful of feces at the military and the country on their way out the door. They've earned themselves infamy that will last forever, as enemies not just of the military and society but of civilization, morality, sanity itself.

"As Commander-in-Chief, I am also absolutely convinced . . ."

No comment really needed. BO as CiC. Absolutely convinced. This is bizarro world. No sane person thinks this guy has the foggiest clue about the military or military people.

It's a dark day for America. May you pay the political price for years to come.

Sad day in our nation's history. The efficiency of our troops is built upon unit cohesion. Unit cohesion is built upon trust, intimacy, comradeship, and fraternity. How can elected officials who are trying to advance the LGBT agenda possibly understand the implications that repealing DADT will have on unit cohesion?

You missed an unsung hero - Patrick Murphy from PA. He sponsored the house legislation both times, and shepherd it through both of those votes. AND, he paid for it with his seat. He was actively opposed in the mid-terms by the Log Cabin Republicans, of all people.

As Gen. MacArthur said "there is no substitute for victory". This win on DADT should put some wind into the sails of the Democrats for other issues, despite the threats from the Republicans.

The Republicans can add DADT to their long list of Repeals, right after social security and medicare and, oh, I have forgotten all the repeals they have planned. It should be a busy two years for Congress while they focus on undoing legislation dating back to the 1930's. The Republican strategy should be called the Big Step Backward.

The joy of seeing Dems, a couple GOPers, and Pres. Obama end the institutionalized discrimination that is DADT is surpassed only by my amusement of watching right-wing commenters here and elsewhere loose their god-d**m minds over it!

Waiving the mandatory 30 hour wait was even the tiniest bit of class by McConnell, as well.

As for Lieberman...huge congrats go to him on this issue. I surely hope he is able to help pass important legislation like this again before voters boot his sorry butt out of office in 2012.

"Waiving the mandatory 30 hour wait was even the tiniest bit of class by McConnell, as well."

He probably doesn't want this winning issue to continue to be news. Now that the GOP has lost they want it out of the news. Also, START will pass, and so they lost in trying to hold up the Senate. They just want to go home now.

Congrats Greg. Your reporting probably made a difference to the outcome here.

I do however think you give Reid a little too much credit for handling this in a "shrewd fashion". He almost managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and was reacting to events, rather than driving them.

"In retrospect, it turns out this move allowed moderates the room to register their procedural objections with a first-round No vote."

I think you are confusing Senate Republicans with House Democrats. The main issue here was completing the tax cuts and the budget first, not registering some sort of protest vote so they could then vote yes. If the tax cuts still weren't done, DADT wouldn't have gotten cloture today either.

You list also omits Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, without whom I suspect repeal of DADT would not have happened. Obama didn't have the military credibility to sell it himself.

Lastly, with the repeal of DADT and the failure to gain cloture on DREAM, the only remaining item for the lame duck session is START ratification? Has the final continuing resolution for funding the government been completed?

michiganmaine, what you and the majority of supporters either fail to realize or don't want to recognize is in those polls to the troops, no question on repealing DADT was even asked! Check out http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Pentagon-DADT-study-was-biased-867276.php

In a while, as homosexuality disrupts the military, the left will be on another antiAmerican crusade....like when Iraq was the bad war but Afghanistan the important war....once the left ascends on a straw-man issue, they change perspectives while leaving the damage behind

This is a historic defeat for America's military forces. It is a great victory for the fringe leftists that control the Democrat party, that's for sure.

Congratulations! Masses of homosexual soldiers will now be able to march down the streets of San Fransisco in the annual, "gay" pride parade without fear of getting discharged. What a victory, for them.

In other news, the dreaded DREAM act is defeated. Yay!

Result:

Obama and his 'crats will get all the homosexual votes in 2012 but Hispanics will stay home.

It's true that getting this off the table is a good call on the GOPs part...but let's face it, they've not missed an opportunity to stall in 2 years. The fact that he is resigning himself to accepting the loss is a step forward. It also signals that he's likely getting pressure within the GOP caucus against risking Sen. Reid holding them over the holidays. This bodes well for the START treaty, which I think is going to take center stage next week.

michiganmaine, if even 25% of soldiers decline to re-enlist, we've got big problems (and there aren't enough homosexuals in the whole country to make up for that kind of reduction). Try thinking LONG term for once.

6pack: "what you and the majority of supporters either fail to realize or don't want to recognize is in those polls to the troops, no question on repealing DADT was even asked! "

Horrors! And guess what...we never polled them to see if they want to go on multiple tours of duty in dangerous places, either. We never polled them to see if they prefer to go to Afghanistan or South Korea or Germany. In fact, we never poll their preferences ON ANYTHING EVER.

Conservatives have been on the wrong side of history in every single civil rights struggle this country has had in its long history. Sad that they couldn't see through yet another wrong, unamerican stance and instead sided with the Iranian president against modern liberal western values.

Don't they ever get tired of being wrong? I would think it would be humiliating. But whatever. The bottom line is that America did the right thing against the best efforts of the right.

claw: "michiganmaine, if even 25% of soldiers decline to re-enlist, we've got big problems (and there aren't enough homosexuals in the whole country to make up for that kind of reduction). Try thinking LONG term for once."

Instead of insulting those you disagree with, try making arguments that convince people. If you really are suggesting that this will mean 25% of soldiers won't re-enlist, I think you are way off base. There is no way that will happen. The public view on this issue is shifting fast. And this will only help. The long-term view is that it is only a matter of time that homosexuality will be accepted by the vast majority of the public, and that means the military as well. The long-term view, which is what I take, shows that this makes sense not only because it is right but because it will help the military.

Have to disagree. The fringe left thinks very long term. This is part of the long march to our destruction that they've been working on incrementally for decades.

"So when you have no, none, not any, evidence on your side of the debate just go for the assertion and attack the person offering the evidence. That is always a sure sign of defeat in a debate."

If you actually read any of that absurd Rand survey, and have a brain, you know it is complete rubbish. And if you know many people in the military, not just the DC crowd, you know the happy pc bs it portrays could hardly be farther from the truth. None of the many people I know in the military is okay with being forced to accept homosexuality as normal, and they for sure aren't okay with Obama and Reid forcing them to.

The public polls are the same garbage. You subject people to years of media drumbeat calling them bigots, and they start answering questions the pc way. But you'll never, ever change the fact that homosexuality is viewed as abnormal and frankly disgusting by a lot more than 20% of people. A lot, lot more.

You folks whose knowledge of society is limited to Greenwich Village or Brookline, and the lefty blogosphere, don't get that. But it's the truth of the matter.

Funny that no leftists want to answer questions about when the reeducation and expulsion of resisters begins. Are you going to kick out any Marine who uses "gay" or "f*g" as an epithet? Starting tomorrow?

It's amazing that the negative reaction to repeal from 65% of actively engaged-in-combat Army and Marines, as well as three service chiefs, gets steamrolled over, barely mentioned in press reports. Any reaction against is instantly designated "homophobia". The "rights" of those people are non-existent, utterly squashed by the PC police.

Current service members enlisted under one set of rules, of conduct, of 'morals'. Will they be given the chance to 'de-enlist', to resign honorably when that code changes? And, please, skip the 'obey orders' routine: orders are 'go fight in Iraq', or 'go kill jihadis', not 'go bunk with openly gay Randy'.

claw: "michiganmaine, no one knows how many will not re-enlist. If it's 25%, then what?!"

So no one knows, but you made up a figure. (At least you admit it.) So your argument is contingent upon your pure assumptions. I could make up figure as well to back up my argument. But that style of argumentation is pretty worthless.

Looks like DADT is history. While I applaud the removal of a barrier to equal citizenship for Lesbians and Gays, the US military is still an organization that tortures and murders, that dupes poor people into enlisting with lies that start in elementary school.

The racist gloating and raging over the defeat of DREAM is over on 44. Like this,

"It's really despicable that the Dream Act failed in the Senate. Our country let Nazis immigrate here after WWII, and gave citizenship to Confederate soldiers who tried to destroy this country. But a few kids who were raised here and whose parents work here can't even apply for citizenship.

I think Obama took these kids for a ride. I will not vote for any Democrats in 2012. If Sarah Palin becomes President, so what."

michiganmaine, I have no problem cooperating with someone in the workplace who has homosexual or bisexual preferences and neither the majority of our troops. However, having to be forced to take open showers or roommate with someone who is gay is a completely different matter. The troops were not asked that question. If they were, the survey results would have been VERY different indeed. Sure, one could say, "Well, joining the military is voluntary and thus by doing so, one is consenting to open showers and forced room assignments." That's true only in the respect that one is consenting to taking open showers and room mating with someone of the same gender and heterosexual preferences. clawrence12 is exactly right. The survey everyone keeps referring to suggests 75% of military personnel are ok with repealing DADT because the questions were about working with people of the LGBT preference in the CIVILIAN workplace. So let's analyze that. The very fact that the survey which SUGGESTS that 75% of military personnel is ok with repealing DADT also suggest that 1/4 of our troops do not agree with a repeal. As clawrence12 said, 25% is a HUGE number of personnel. Again, if the survey had actually asked if troops would be ok with a repeal of DADT then then the assenting numbers would have been much lower. As quarterback1 said, You have to realize what's going on here. The LGBT agenda and by extension, the Democratic agenda is to create a phobia for everything and call anyone who doesn't agree with their views a bigot, hater, etc.
Well, as a Christian who believes in the truth of the Bible, I have this to say: God created man for woman and woman for man. In Genesis 2:24 the Bible says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis along with Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians establish homosexuality as not only abnormal, but as sin. Isaiah 5:20 states "WOE to those who call EVIL GOOD AND GOOD EVIL, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Just because you may have a lot of people or even a majority saying something is right doesn't make it so. "Political correctedness" is simply a matter of twisting truth and morality using post-modern ideas and the assertion of "majority is always right" mentality. Christ warned us that this will happen in the last days. This is no surprise.

QB: "If you actually read any of that absurd Rand survey, and have a brain, you know it is complete rubbish. ... None of the many people I know in the military is okay with being forced to accept homosexuality as normal...."

Again, all you can do to support your argument is insult me and resort to random anecdotes. Sure sign of defeat.

Reading this is like watching a bunch of winger heads expode in sucession. Great fun!

Most telling is the bigot who talks about a 'radical civil rights agenda.' You can be sure that during the first civil rights era, these folks would have been the ones cheering the cops with the dogs and firehoses.

I want to see the thank you letter sbj promised to write to Harry Reid posted right here in the comments!
-----------------------------------------------------
I must have missed his promise. I think that's the least that sbj should do--write a letter of thanks to Reid. Along with a Certificate of Mailing.

Despite the fact that I have been ranting about "no budget and no appropriations bills" for weeks, and despite the fact I think this a sorry mess of a Congress because of its unprecedented inattention to its first job,
I agree that this is a social landmark.

To review history without revising it, when I enlisted in 1968 there was no congressional statute about gays in the military but the military, by regulation, found gays unfit to serve. Thus thousands of draft dodgers pretended to be gay and the military response was eventually to draft most of those claiming to be gay on the assumption they were lying. Brigade and ceflynline are both old enough to remember this, I think.

In 1993, Clinton wanted a change in the military's regulation DQing homosexuals. The Congressional response was to DQ homosexuals by statute, which required a rational basis distinction to be constitutional. The military provided that rational basis by testifying that open homosexuals were prejudicial to good order and discipline in support of the new statute. Clinton responded with the DADT regulation that allowed gays to continue to serve if they were discrete.

Now the military support for the 1993 DQ statute has been substantially eroded, to the point that this Supreme Court might have ruled that statute unconstitutional, as having no rational basis for the distinction.

Without the DQ statute, repealed in this manner, I do think the military will have more leeway to actually address any unit cohesion issues that arise. From military testimony now, we see that they will not arise in most branches and in most echelons, but we are told that they may arise among active ground combat units, or that training now for a social change is inopportune during combat. I take that seriously. If cohesion issues arise, the military will have the flexibility to deal with them under a simple legislative repeal of the DQ; more than they might have had under a "worst case" mandatory injunction. I mean, for instance, that the Marines could probably wait until ground combat missions in AFG have been finally completed to do the training for and complete integration of their units, if they think that is necessary. I expect them to act honorably in that regard, of course. I also expect sexually unwanted advances by homosexuals to be treated as seriously as they are by heterosexuals. "Red light" will be a phrase used by women with women, as well as by women with men. I really do believe that the Navy will have virtually no issues at all, but my guess is that Marines and Army infantry units will, for awhile.

Wow, what great news to come back to. A lot of people deserve credit for this but let's not forget Dan Choi, who really more than anyone else put a human face on the dilemma our gay and lesbian service personnel faced everyday while putting their lives on the line.

And Greg, you've done a fantastic job the past few weeks keeping us all informed and hanging onto our hats for the roller coaster ride. An historic vote that nudges our country into the 21st. Century and a campaign promise kept.

michiganmaine, you cited one of the most frequently cited statistics which is, "When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect." However, using precisely the same numbers, one could also say, "When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 62% of Service members predicted it would have a negative or mixed effect."
One of the main disconnects is that many reports have conflated the "positive" responses toward repeal with the "equally positive or negative" or "no effect" responses. This is likely due to the report’s openly stated bias toward repeal: The underlying question is "What harm would come from repeal?" rather than "What good would come from repeal?"
Some critics, including US Senator John McCain, have asserted the questions may be flawed on their face. The questions essentially say, "If the Soldier next to you was homosexual, could you still defeat the enemy?" When most Soldiers naturally answer "yes," some have taken it to mean they have "no problem" with or are "ambivalent" about serving with homosexuals, which is not at all what the question asks. Think about that. Source: http://christianfighterpilot.com/blog/2010/12/01/dadt-survey-doesn%E2%80%99t-say-what-you-think-it-says%E2%80%A6/

"Again, all you can do to support your argument is insult me and resort to random anecdotes. Sure sign of defeat."

On the contrary, as I said, I actually read the survey that is the only piece of "evidence" you cite, and it is pure junk social science. I suspect you didn't actually read it. Its methodology, questions, etc., make it almost laughable.

Now, why would people charged by a pro-homesexual integration POTUS with doing a survey to support his goal design it with such a skewed methodology? Hmm, sort of answers itself.

I note that most of the left's arguments are like Greg's above -- mere assertions of "decency and common sense." They really have nothing to do with actual military attitudes or operational effectiveness, because that's a losing argument. But this repeal is the opposite of decency and common sense in every way. Those aren't things the left is ever in favor of.

Well, I stand corrected...he didn't actually say "thank you letter" though I don't know how he would convey his thanks otherwise...

Here's the relevant post:
-------
Posted by: sbj3 (7)

@mike: "sbj, if Reid bring this to vote and is passes with overwhelmingly Democratic support, will you be the first to thank Reid and the Dems?"

Yes.

Benen: "At this point, it appears the only thing standing between the repeal effort and success is the leadership finding time to bring this to the floor...
If this effort falls short because of a crowded calendar next week, and senators' desire not to work the week between Christmas and New Year's, the response will not be kind."

C'mon folks. Don't let Reid off the hook just because you hate me. There's a clear path to repealing DADT.

What exactly is the "training" for implementing repeal? Sounds like re-education camps. The training most likely is arming a new brigade of lawyers to harass soldiers who have the temerity to resist. What a self-inflicted wound we are causing to our combat troops!

By the time this is implemented and nothing bad happens [you should read the arguments at the time black men were allowed to serve along whites -- same stuff] the bigots will move on to find other groups to hate. muslims, more than likely. of course, they probably hate them already too.

I am holding my breath right now as I watch the final vote. This law has been the most negative and heinous policy and has deeply wounded millions of bi and gay Americans. DADT has caused so much immediate harm and if this vote does not repeal, it is a veritable certainty that the courts will rule that DADT is unconstitutional and a clear and egregious violation of the 14th Amendment. So many loyal and productive bi and gay Americans who wholly dedicated their lives to serving our country in the most patriotic way imaginable have been wrongly discharged. Reparations should be made to each and every gay and/or bi person who has been harmed. This vote is so very meaningful to gay Americans and it should be meaningful to soldiers everywhere who believe that we are all created equal and that we all regardless of our sexual orientation deserve the right to serve our country. Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins deserve huge thanks from the GBLT community because of their lynch-pin arm-twisting behind the scenes. Next the Defense of Marriage Act, which also clearly violates the 14th Amendment and is most certainly discriminatory against millions of gay and bi Americans. I am anxiously awaiting the final numbers here. History is happening before my eyes. I never ever dared to dream that this day would finally come. From the first time I came out and marched in support of gay rights in 1973, I never believed in my lifetime that gay and bi people would get this far. Regardless of how you feel about President Obama, it has been his adherence to his beliefs and his insistence that the Legislature and courts fulfill their real responsibilities and deal honestly, openly, and fairly with the issue of GBLT people. The time has come for the U.S.A. to get over whatever prejudice or bias has historically been dumped on GLBT people. The bill has just been passed -- DADT has been repealed. Hallelujah! Landmark milestone in history! What a day! What joy! To quote, MLK, Jr., "FREE AT LAST! FREE AT LAST!"

Mr. "To Hold A Vote on DADT is poisoning the well" Corker voted AYE!
--------------------------------------------------------
Maybe Mr. Corker has decided that instead of being gracious in defeat, he'd rather be among the victorious.

While the nation burns to the ground for want of responsible economic legislation, the San Francisco uber-left Democrats use taxpayer time to convert America into a Homosexual's dream of utopia.

You're normal! It's not a genetic defect that afflicts you!
.
.
.
The Washington Post publishes literally four articles a day on Homosexual issues.
.
.
.
The Washington Post is a Homosexual activist organization, not a news organization.

The Washington Post is a Homosexual activist organization, not a news organization.

Looks like DADT is history. While I applaud the removal of a barrier to equal citizenship for Lesbians and Gays, the US military is still an organization that tortures and murders, that dupes poor people into enlisting with lies that start in elementary school.

Posted by: greeenmtns | December 18, 2010 2:18 PM
============================================
This comment ranks with some of the stupidest ever on the WaPo boards. That includes the Capitals boards.

If the US military were so horrible as described by the individual above, why would LGBT WANT to be part of such an organization? As if they were never part of the organization in the first place?

Unbelievable. Goes to show that most of these people who were for overturning DADT hate the military anyway.

When I thinks of Jason Linkins I'm usually laughing at his tongue in cheek comments re the Sunday morning shows, but here he shows an insight and relevance I've never noticed before. A momentous occasion that deserves timeless language.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"For seventeen years, the military has had "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in place. And prior to that, gays have served in the armed forces with valor and honor and distinction. Isn't that amazing? We're talking about people who very easily could have opted out of serving their country -- and serving in a military that, at times, despised them, dishonored them, condoned their harassment, shrugged off their murder. If "Don't Ask Don't Tell" achieved anything, it gave gays and lesbians a pretty easy escape hatch from military service. It's not like getting killed in the Hindu Kush is something to which people aspire. It's not like our wars are getting more sensible. And yet through it all, gay men and women kept right on signing up to serve in the military. And those who have been discharged keep fighting to get back in.

Now why would they do a thing like that? Sign up to fight and die for a country that, at times, didn't seem to like them very much? Well, it's because these words -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- were part of the most successful viral marketing campaign in the history of the civilized world.

The men who wrote those words weren't the best at living up to them -- and none of us since have gotten it perfect, either. But someone wrote those words down on paper, and people read it, and when they read it, it made them want to fight for it.

And so today, it's important to remember that even as we have struggled and wrangled and argued over when and how we would actually start doing the right thing, men and women in the LGBT community have nevertheless continued to fight for us, and defend our right to live free and have these prolonged debates. It's important to remember that the argument we're concluding today continues the great American mission of forging a "more perfect union." It's important to remember that the argument we've concluded today was over territory that many gay soldiers fought to occupy. It's important to remember that some of the good people who formed that occupying force died in its defense. And today, seventeen years after they began their mission, reinforcements have finally arrived.

The vast majority of the population never joins the military, so the percentage of gay people in the military will continue to be a very small percentage of all branches.

Every one will still have to go through boot camp and prove that they are able to do the job.

The only real change will be; that no one will be allowed to harass and bully fellow soldiers, because of their sexual orientation. I doubt if very many of our brave soldiers would want to behave that way, anyway.

You bedwetters are just projecting your own sickness on to our Troops. They are not like you. They fight for to keep people free. You are fighting to deprive people of their equal rights.

You poor sad wretched little vermin. History is consigning you to the sewage treatment plant of history.

"But the botton line is that the White House did everything possible to create the political climate necessary to make this happen."

Really? How does, for example, appointing General Amos as Marine Commandant and letting him unleash a barrage of homophobic bile on the even of the Senate vote amount to doing "everything possible"? Your claim is not remotely credible.

Aaron Belkin on CNN just claimed the Joint Chiefs are bring political in asking for time to implement and "not at all based on what they need." In fact, he thinks that the military can "train the forces in a matter of weeks."

Gays,Bis and lesbians should be given the same rights as any other legal citizens but no more. Elevating them, as a legitimate group, to the same level as race and religion, ethnicity etc., that legally categorize people, is just another reward for aberrant behavior. Uberlibs rejoice

Yeah, I see that now. I was watching another site that was logging the votes, and they marked that one wrong. Good on Burr and Ensign, too.
----------------------------------------------------------------
@sue,

It's easy to make a mistake when the Nays can easily be counted, but there are so many Ayes, they have to be weighed.

It is a very odd time for sbj to be AWOL, isn't it?
---------------------------------------------------
He must be out buying Harry Reid a nice Christmas present. Right this minute, he's standing in line at the post office to mail it. It's probably a really nice Steuben glass something or other, expensive, but tasteful.

"This comment ranks with some of the stupidest ever on the WaPo boards. That includes the Capitals boards.

If the US military were so horrible as described by the individual above, why would LGBT WANT to be part of such an organization? As if they were never part of the organization in the first place?

Unbelievable. Goes to show that most of these people who were for overturning DADT hate the military anyway."

I think you'll find many here that agree with what greemtns quoted.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 18, 2010 3:58 PM |

Of course they will. Because most of the WaPo boards members are left-leaning anti-military anyway. Unfortunately for them, they'll have far more to be concerned about come 20 January, 2013.

What I find particularly interesting is the fact this has very little to do with the military allowing homosexuals to serve. They already did anyway, and the notion DADT prevented some from having sexual activity is laughable. The ones who got the boot typically did something else to get the boot. Like disgraced traitor Bradley Manning of Wikileaks infamy. I forget, among the liberal left, he's a hero.

It had everything to do with civilian control exerted by the left over the military and pandering to a particularly strong financial support group for the POTUS. While this may be a "win" for the LGBT lobby, it's going to turn out to be part of an even more stupendous political defeat for the President in 2012 than the 2010 (historic) fail.

If I were Obama I would understand that he has to win to win.
When one side has declared him a dead man walking, no matter what he does, he can only pick off a few votes from that side's supporters and those at the expense of many, many votes lost, the people who elected him falling away.

Mr. Obama, you get no credit for DADT repeal, you did not drive it. If the Republicans had a legitimate Presidential contender, you would be working now on borrowed time Sir, literally and figuratively.

Winning political moments happen when your opponents are crushed, they set up that reality. You can not change that. You crush them or they will crush you.

Stop pretending the American people want you to mediate. Republicans hate you Sir, they hate you. Stop trying to find a political neutral zone. If you think you have found it, it won't be neutral for long. Do the right thing Mr. President, you know what that is.

Well, if we see a decline in re-enlistment or enlistment, then the armed forces will be a whole lot better at doing it's job - the right way, with the right team - men and women devoted to country, above all else.

suekz, he did not cause any trouble, he got in there and adjusted some dials in the way you say.

Look, I can not claim to know more than you, I was so wrong about how this turned out. I just think he has nothing to lose by fighting the people he can not please.

It is going to get rough as his election comes up. The money lined up against him will break all records (even though the Republicans have no serious candidate). I can not figure out why he does not get in front of things that Democrats have going for them, when public opinion is in his favor. Why doesn't he accept his role? He doesn't even have to move public opinion and he demures. The bully pulpit, all that.

I hope I am wrong. In fact, maybe I'll just keep hoping I am wrong and things will turn out. As I said yesterday, he may be the political genius we all thought he was when we fought the Clintons so hard.

People told me fighting the Clintons in favor of Obama might cause the demise of the Democratic party and they were money people, very serious.

If I were Obama I would understand that he has to win to win.
When one side has declared him a dead man walking, no matter what he does, he can only pick off a few votes from that side's supporters and those at the expense of many, many votes lost, the people who elected him falling away.

Mr. Obama, you get no credit for DADT repeal, you did not drive it. If the Republicans had a legitimate Presidential contender, you would be working now on borrowed time Sir, literally and figuratively.

Winning political moments happen when your opponents are crushed, they set up that reality. You can not change that. You crush them or they will crush you.

Stop pretending the American people want you to mediate. Republicans hate you Sir, they hate you. Stop trying to find a political neutral zone. If you think you have found it, it won't be neutral for long. Do the right thing Mr. President, you know what that is.
========================================
The American people have already decided they don't want this President anymore. I thought Mr. Obama represented "change". Instead, overturning DADT represents the worst in political pandering. It is essentially telling the military their sacrifices don't matter in the grand scope of providing his supporters--a special interest group--a victory. Just like the absolutely absurd implementation of social networking sites allowed on military networks. The President has proven to be a solid hypocrite when it comes to "change". It's just more rewarding of his cronies.

Celebrate, liberal supporters. You have until January 3rd until the fun stops and roughly two years until you're on the outside again, wailing how could the dumbest person ever to run for political office (Sarah Idiot) could win the Presidency.

I'm so proud. As someone who was born hating discrimination, who saw water fountains marked Colored and White in Maryland in the 50s, I feel a great dark cloud lifted from our nation at last. At long long last. It's a brighter day in America. 12.18.10 is in deed historic.

Some day Medicare for All and free college (GI Bill for all) and we'll become the civilized, generous, smart nation we dream of. HR 2965 concurred with 65-31. Hurrrrrray!

What a relief that they somehow managed to pass concur with HR 2965, to repeal DADT. Finally. Again, I felt a mordorian dark cloud lift from the land; it felt tangible.

There's a golden umami light in Silicon Valley. There is light that is tangible, luscious, as my Van Gogh's brush strokes are so tangible. There are dark clouds you get habituated to. And when they lift, you are shocked at the missing grime. Thus, today, good riddance orc law.

"But the botton line is that the White House did everything possible to create the political climate necessary to make this happen."

Really? How does, for example, appointing General Amos as Marine Commandant and letting him unleash a barrage of homophobic bile on the even of the Senate vote amount to doing "everything possible"? Your claim is not remotely credible.

Posted by: uh_huhh | December 18, 2010 4:14 PM |
=========================================
Maybe General Amos was appointed because he was the best person for the job, and not because of any political pandering effort? You may have heard, but the military has other concerns than overturning DADT.

Incredible is the naivety on the left. The above thinking is why the Democrats are going to suffer huge defeats (again) in 2012. No one besides hard core liberals is going to back Obama again. The grassroots are dead. Sorry, I know the WaPo op-ed pages may help you think so, but the great majority of the United States...not just the Deep South...is conservative. Unless he swings back to the center, he's got no shot in 2012.

Liam-still, it's not "hateful" to point out that 25% declining to re-enlist (how many are not going to sign up in the first place?) would decimate our military.
------------------------------------------
There is nothing ground breaking about allowing gay people to openly serve in the military. The US is just catching up with the rest of the modern world (we seem to be constantly lagging behind these days). 22 out of the 26 NATO countries allow people to serve their country regardless of their sexual orientation.

To review history without revising it, when I enlisted in 1968 there was no congressional statute about gays in the military but the military, by regulation, found gays unfit to serve. Thus thousands of draft dodgers pretended to be gay and the military response was eventually to draft most of those claiming to be gay on the assumption they were lying. Brigade and ceflynline are both old enough to remember this, I think.

Ceflynline? Brigade?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2010 2:33 PM |
-------

I'm old enough; I, too, went in'68. I honestly don't remember much about gays from that era. I mentioned in an earlier thread that I doubt a claim of being gay would have kept anyone from getting drafted during the Vietnam war---too many people were looking for a way out.

I had no idea at that age that homosexuality was so widespread. My only exposure had been a Methodist minister who came onto me as a younger teen. But he was married with child, so he must not have been totally gay---I don't really understand the difference between AC/DC and just plain ole gay. Shrink or the commie could probably give insight.

I was not in favor of this repeal, so I guess that makes me a bigot by consensus. People with flat feet or high blood pressure can be rejected without claim of discrimination, and I agree with QB that the military was not really behind this.

I doubt that pedophiles are pedophiles by choice but rather suffer from a chromosome out of whack somewhere, yet they are routinely discriminated against to the point that they have a hard time just finding somewhere to live. We're told they can't be trusted to control themselves around children, yet we're now told that gays can be trusted to control themselves around the particular objects of their lust. Go figure. Why couldn't pedophiles be given the option of military service over prison? They would have fewer chances for temptation on a military base and, after all, they didn't "choose" to be the way they are.

I don't see ceflynline around here much.

I do remember once having a heated discussion with caothien9, under a different moniker, about the selective advantage of the gene for homosexualty. You should inquire of him. I think he has some theory that the coding mutation which leads to gayness is inextricably linked to a mutation which could lead to the ability to survive in an atmopshere rich in methane gas.

In the most important way, pga6 is correct, Obama either fights people like pga6, or Obama is done. "The grassroots are dead." If this is true, so is Obama.

Obama can not take care of the center right, he can not appeal to anyone on the right, he never did. They hate him, they will give Obama no quarter, nothing he does will be ok. The people who oppose DADT repeal will vote for any candidate who stands more strongly against Obama than the other, even entirely crazy people like Angle and O'Donnell.

Obama better take care of the people who elected him, because we can re-elect him. It isn't as if the Republicans are going to have better candidates than Palin/McCain in 2012. The only disagreement I have with pga6 is this, Obama never moved away from the center, you people think you can move the position of the center and draw him over to the right.

To the extent that works, he loses his grassroots, his base.
We hope he is smarter than that.

It's pretty obvious, that our elected officials, don't represent their constituents. Every time a sexual orientation issue such as gay and lesbian marriage, DADT etc. comes up for vote, it passes by a large margin. However, when these same issues are ballot questions voted on by the populace, they are just as soundly defeated. To all of our elected officials, from King Hussein on down, I say, "YOU'RE FIRED"

Well, if we see a decline in re-enlistment or enlistment, then the armed forces will be a whole lot better at doing it's job - the right way, with the right team - men and women devoted to country, above all else.

As for the quitters? They won't even be missed. The 'book' they thump makes a great door stop.

"Are you going to kick out any Marine who uses 'gay' or 'f*g' as an epithet? Starting tomorrow?"

That would be superb, but no, not tomorrow, you bigoted heap of worthless flesh. We'll have to wait for the repeal to be certified by the Commander in Chief, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense. I bet you would have cried when using the n word became off-limits, as well.

You and all of your black-hearted friends managed to keep this from happening for quite some time, leading to all kinds of problems, but now you've finally lost, I'm afraid :)

Brigade, you know about the sickening ongoing catastrophe, violent sexual crimes committed by adults against children, overwhelmingly by straight men against girls. Why are you talking about pedophiles? Are you really that stupid? Do you think raping kids is funny? What are you?

Brigade, you know about the sickening ongoing catastrophe, violent sexual crimes committed by adults against children, overwhelmingly by straight men against girls. Why are you talking about pedophiles? Are you really that stupid? Do you think raping kids is funny? What are you?

Posted by: shrink2 | December 18, 2010 5:39 PM
--------

I think you may be stupid or maybe just willfully missing the point. Do you or do you not believe that pedophiles are pedophiles by choice? Could they choose not to be attracted to children? If they cannot help themselves, should they not be confined to a treatment facility rather than a penitentiary? Are they what you call straight? I was under the impression that young boys were sometimes victimized as well. No? I guess that old sicko was just kidding when he approached me as a young teen.

Did I say or suggest that I thought raping kids was funny? No? Project much?

Brigade is the sick creep who said that he was delighted that the unarmed students at Kent State were shot, because it was a good object lesson for all others who were protesting against the war in Vietnam.

Also, awesome on DADT repeal.
And yeah, members of the military will have to accept it. You don't get to question the military from within the military.

Bigger question, is there any way this doesn't get done? Any procedural hurdles the House Republicans can use to block this? Seems like Pelosi can just bring the repeal up for a vote on Monday and Prez can sign that same day.

"When asked by New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter to comment on the study’s finding, Fox News’ senior vice president for news editorial attacked the university, claiming it’s merely a “party school”:

Asked for comment on the study, Fox News seemingly dismissed the findings. In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.”

Mr. Clemente oversees every hour of objective news programming on Fox News, which is by far the nation’s most popular cable news channel.

“For the record,” Stelter noted, “the Princeton Review says the University of Maryland ranks among the ‘Best Northeastern Colleges.’ It was No. 19 on the Review’s list of ‘Best Party Schools.’”

Brigade is a creep, nuff said. He would have been good with the firehoses and dogs of the civil rights movement, as he is with torture. It seems that sadism is an integral part of rightwing culture, along with a genetic lack of humanity and empathy.

"It's pretty obvious, that our elected officials, don't represent their constituents. Every time a sexual orientation issue such as gay and lesbian marriage, DADT etc. comes up for vote, it passes by a large margin. However, when these same issues are ballot questions voted on by the populace, they are just as soundly defeated. To all of our elected officials, from King Hussein on down, I say, "YOU'RE FIRED"

Um, no, sorry, you are completely wrong. Fully 80% of the population supports this repeal. And gee, you can fire all of our elected officials at will? Where did you get this amazing power? Perhaps you are unaware that 'elected officials' are 'elected' to 'represent citizens'? Try reading the Constitution, it's like this amazing thing the founders of our country wrote.

Greg, this nutcase is inciting violence, murder. can someone call the FBI?

sometimes these folks are the real thing -- many recent rightwing perpetrators of violence have posted intentions like these on political blogs -- only the authorities can tell the difference between the threatening but cowardly weenies and the ones who actually will go through with it.

You need to capture his IPO, so that if something happens, you will have info to give to the feds.

ddawd: "Bigger question, is there any way this doesn't get done? Any procedural hurdles the House Republicans can use to block this? Seems like Pelosi can just bring the repeal up for a vote on Monday and Prez can sign that same day."

The House and Senate passed identical bills. It's done. Next step, White House signing ceremony.

@sbj - I don't think that's good enough. You really need to acknowledge that Reid is a prince among men, a heroic figure marked by greatness and your new role model for a life lived to its fullest potential.

"That's true only in the respect that one is consenting to taking open showers"

==

What is it with you guys and showers? I guess you don't go to the gym. About half the men in the shower at most gyms are gay and the other half are straight and they remain gyms, not bathhouses, so what the hell are you on about with this crap?

Brigade is the sick creep who said that he was delighted that the unarmed students at Kent State were shot, because it was a good object lesson for all others who were protesting against the war in Vietnam.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 18, 2010
--------

Brigade may be a sick creep by your perverted standards, but Brigade certainly never said what you attribute to him, er, me---as anyone who followed that particular thread is aware. I was actually opposed to our involvement in Vietnam. But as I (actually) said in the thread in question, it can be dangerous for protestors to turn violent and take to the streets. Kent State was an example.

Moron.

-------

I'm a bedwetter just projecting my own sickness on to our Troops. They are not like me. They fight for to keep people free. I would prefer they fight to deprive people of their rights.

I'm a poor sad wretched little vermin. History is consigning me to the sewage treatment plant of history.

"Brigade is a creep, nuff said. He would have been good with the firehoses and dogs of the civil rights movement, as he is with torture."

------

Wrong again. Brigade (and most Republicans) were for civil rights. It was the Democrats who tried to scuttle the civil rights movement. Al Gore's dad, Robert Byrd, Bill Clinton's mentor J. William Fulbright, et al. You know what a filibuster is, don't you? Fire hoses and dogs were commonly used by Dixiecrats (a cuddly word for Democrats) such as Bull Connor, George Wallace, and Jimmy Carter's hero Lester Maddox, who also favored the baseball bat. Contrary to liberal legend (are you listening caothien9), most of them remained Dems until their dying days.

Affirmative action? Was Richard Nixon a Democrat?
"Nixon, recalled civil rights leader James Farmer, was the strongest president on affirmative action--up to that point."

But keep trying. Study history. Surely everyone doesn't already know that you're an idiot. Oh, and civil rights and sodomy rights are the same, right?

I would have betted against Ensign supporting repeal. THAT is a surprise; he's on of those guys that lives in the Christian boardinghouse thingee in DC.

When did John McCain turn into Jesse Helms? What a disgrace he's turned out to be, vengeful and reactionary and erratic. No more fit to be president than the organ grinder's monkey he chose to be his VP.

Recruits will have to sign a statement that they accept homosexuality as normal and equivalent to normal sexuality."

==

Need a hanky, D|PSH|T?

Yeah, soldiers who call their gay breathren by bigoted names will indeed be court-martialed, just as they would if they called their black brethren n*ggers. And I'm sure back in the days of racial integration of the military people were making this same complaint. This is after all the basis of the conservative preoccupation with "political correctness" .. you somehow want to be able to remain openly bigoted yet still regarded as gentlemen.

Well, you can't that's over. Social justice has advanced and left you bigots at the station. the generations after you wonder what all the fuss is about, they have gay coworkers and classmates and wonder what Personal Issues you guys are struggling with.

As for your signed statement thing that's a bunch of paranoid rot.

And homosexuality IS part of normal sexuality, its constancy over time and culture proves that. Obviously there's is some evolutionary reason for it, otherwise the lesser reproductive rates of homosexuals would have attenuated it to zero thousands of years ago.

And homosexuality IS part of normal sexuality, its constancy over time and culture proves that. Obviously there's is some evolutionary reason for it, otherwise the lesser reproductive rates of homosexuals would have attenuated it to zero thousands of years ago.

You must be amazingly stupid to not see that.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 18, 2010 9:25 PM
------

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa. I told you he'd get around to this. The gene for homosexuality carries selective side benefits that will become obvious when Earth develops the same atmosphere as Jupiter.

And pedophilia IS part of normal sexuality, its constancy over time and culture proves that. Obviously there's is some evolutionary reason for it, otherwise the lesser reproductive rates of pedophiles would have attenuated it to zero thousands of years ago.

"Rep. Michele Bachmann, one of the most outspoken conservatives in the House, has won an appointment to the secretive House Intelligence Committee.

The move by incoming Speaker John Boehner to put Bachmann on the panel surprised Republican insiders, who see her as a fiery grass roots leader of the tea party movement but not necessarily a leader on national security among House Republicans."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46566.html

We'll assume the lady wasn't appointed for her penetrating intellect nor some unique familiarity with international affairs nor a history of depth studies on intelligence issues.

So it's entirely political. But what's the advantage? Obviously, it provides a sop the the Tea Party crowd and that's surely key.

One notion Benen has bumped into is that the secrecy constraints will effectively shut her mouth and avoid the embarrassments that might arise up the road if she keeps yakking.

But I can imagine another possibility here. We'll see Backmann on FOX and elsewhere..."Let me tell you, Bill/Glenn/Katie, we are in the gravest dangers. And not just from sources outside the country but from inside the country as well. Perhaps even from within this administration the way it is operating. I'm sworn to secrecy, of course and that's all I can say but let me tell you, American could be brought down. I've seen the intel. And I'm scared."

caothien9: "And homosexuality IS part of normal sexuality, its constancy over time and culture proves that. Obviously there's is some evolutionary reason for it, otherwise the lesser reproductive rates of homosexuals would have attenuated it to zero thousands of years ago."

Also, too, God created all that inhabits this planet. And He didn't make any mistakes!

"I really do believe that the Navy will have virtually no issues at all, but my guess is that Marines and Army infantry units will, for awhile. Ceflynline? Brigade? Posted by: mark_in_austin"

The trolls have been conspicuously absent so I will respond.

Through out NATO when a country dropped rules preventing gay and lesbian service claims were made that great masses of those countriees' man power would leave proved groundless. Lots of grousing occurred until the time to decide to stay or go arrived. Then whether there were gays in the service became negligable in the context of what the chooser wanted from the service: Himself out for all the ordinary reasons or himself in for all the other ordinary reasons.

In the Army for every soldier who opts out there will be two Gays or lesbians who want in. Since many of the DADT ejectees were in critical MOS's for every boxo who had trouble learning which way was the front of the truck he drove there will be a linguist or a depot level technician quality enlistee who is gaay and was unable to even try to enlist to replace said Bozo. Overall the quality of the troops inservice will improve. I can't guess the marines, because I could never comprehend the thought processes of marines when I was serving, Army or Navy.

The Navy is heaving a sigh of relief because it, of all the services, was trying not to notice its un-asked gay contingent. When I was on the Knox we had more than one transferee to other ships who had a reputation as less straight than a broad weave maneuver go without question, as the captain heaved a sigh of relief that he wouldn't have to deal with that possible problem sailor.

There will be grousing, there will be isolated discipline problems, and there will be commanders who get in trouble by bucking the new policy, but in no real time the adjustments will be made and life will go on, and the real problems, a worn out Army and over used soldiers will need lots of time and rebuilding to make things right.

DADT was a step in the direction of every one who seeks to serve being given the chance. A time will come when current disqualifying conditions like legal blindness and physical incapacity will be waivable for men and women with skills and talents the services need badly enough.

There will come a day when the Military will have special training units for disabled recruits who happen to speak critical languages, or who can operate remotely operated vehicles more deftly than fully abled troops, and who therefor can free those fully abled troops for other duties, while they endure the desolate wastes of Nellis AFB, far from anything more animated than snakes, gila monsters, and road runners.

That will produce just as discordant objection as did integrating the services, or letting women fly, or letting women into MOS's that put them in combat on a regular basis. Each of those barriers has fallen. More will fall eventually.

"The main reason soldiers won't re-enlist because of this would be having to share close quarters with OPENLY gay soldiers.

Call it squeamishness if you like. I doubt that most females would appreciate forced showers with male soldiers."

==

Wow, forced showers. You made hygiene sound like rape.

If the military ordained women and men shower together, as is ordinary in so many other countries, then shower together they would, and people who objected too strenuously would be counseled or disciplined or expelled, just like any other discipline problem. How the Puritan legacy lives on, and how backwards America is this this repeal was even necessary.

And thanks for highlighting "openly," because that's the only thing that's changed. Gay soldiers are already there, serving with bravery and distinction, and needlessly enduring the harassment and discrimination typified today by the keyboard kommandoes. Now gay men can have snaps of themselves with the boyfriends in the same personal areas as straight men have snaps of the wifey and the rugrats, and so what.

@RFR - You're getting rather emotional on this issue of homosexuality. Was it because of my earlier hinted invitation...an evening together, just the two of us, some candles, a bottle of your favorite tarty Beaujolais, Sinatra soft and tantalizing, you in the kitchen in your army boots and that oh so naughty apron open at the back

"The only real change will be; that no one will be allowed to harass and bully fellow soldiers, because of their sexual orientation. Posted by: Liam-still "

nd because they will not be allowed to bully actual gays and lesbians, they will not be allowed to bully and murder straights who got the undeserved reputation of being gay because some red neck decided he didn't like their effete eastern ways.

Not all of the victims of DADT were actually gay. Some only got handed that reputation by bullies with ulterior motives.

"We'll assume the lady wasn't appointed for her penetrating intellect nor some unique familiarity with international affairs nor a history of depth studies on intelligence issues."

Why should "we" assume this? Have you interviewed her and subjected her to an IQ test? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but that assumption on "our" part require's substantiation, no? Or, is it that she does not have "our" exact educational experiences and is therefore unqualified? Or, is it that her idealogical differences with "us" immediately disqualify her?

ey 6pack you didn't advance any arguments. You said something about showers and wrote as though there will be implicitly negative effects of the DADT repeal. See, that's the whole problem .. those negative effects haven't been demonstrated, on the contrary, they're notably absent in other countries where this never would have been an issue in the first place.

So you're propping up a straw man and nobody's going to take any trouble to knock it down.

Showers, showers, showers. So a gay mean sees a straight man's willy in the shower, do you think that's going to inflame him with uncontrollable lust? Get a goddamn grip.

Homophobia is intolerance which brings no benefit. Sexual orientation and gender identity don't determine military capability and don't determine good character. The Senate has done the correct thing by passing the bill which will advance the process of repeal against the intolerant 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. It's great that eight Republicans voted yes on that bill. President Obama has said a great comment against 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' so he's living up to his promise of what he said in the 2010 State of the Union address.

Figures Brigade would go for the shock value and make some ugly joke about pedophilia, probably trying to equate acceptance of gays with acceptance of pedophiles, another idiot slippery slope argument.

And wrong. The 1974 decision to remove homosexuality as a psychpathology was based on the absence of any evidence that homosexuals suffer from anything other than bigotry; homosexuals are just as capable of productive and wholesome lives as heteros.

Not so pedophiles. Pedophilia isn't just socially unacceptable, pedophiles exhibit all kinds of associated pathologies, as I'm sure shrink could expand upon more deeply than I can, but there is a compulsivity associated with child molestors that has not correspondence with gays. They often report that they can't stop themselves.

No matter. It's just another case of Brigade using this repeal as a pretext to dredge up one of the uglier stereotypes to get an extra ration of special attention. Why anyone would read this guy's verbal vomit when we have a troll filter is beyond my comprehending.

caothien9, the issue is that this completely hypocritical and will adversely affect unit cohesion. If you're going to allow this, then why not have coed barracks and showers and completely throw all the rules out of the window? I also spoke of Biblical truth regarding homosexuality and the bias of the surveys. I even provided sources. What I'm trying to get across here is that the laws of this country are becoming more and more based on the opinion and illogical rationale of the few and the many who dissent are silenced by being called "bigoted" and whatever phobia that can be applied. Eventually, people will be trying to justify pedophilia and have parades in San Francisco of NAMBLA members lobbying for adult-child marriage and "rights". Wake up. See the truth. The best you and other pro-repealers are doing is calling me and others exercising our free speech rights insults and other childish tactics. \

Hey, 6pack, thanks for taking the trouble to Remove All Doubt. There can be none anymore: you're a moron.

"Biblical truth regarding homosexality," what a fingerful of earwax. That's about as germane to the argument as raccons' dietary need for garlic. Shove that stuff.

What you call your free speech rights boils down to your hurt feelings at no longer being able to be both bigot and genteman, and that ship sailed long ago. The military exists within a democracy but it isn't one, and now it has a new "tyranny," which the great majority of its members will live with and some won't, to the benefit OF the military. Send the hicks back to BFE and make room for their gay betters.

And your slippery slope thing about pedophilia and NAMBLA, well, I won't tell you what you can do with that but I'll spot you a tube of Vaseline to help you do it.

LibertyForAll calls homophobia intolerance that brings no benefit. If you're referring to the hatred of the people, then I completely agree as the Bible says that Christians must be tolerant with others. However, God does not tolerate sin. Those of us who are against homosexuality are hate the sin, not the sinner. Yes, our God is a God of love but homosexuality is not love. Even those of you who believe in evolution have to admit that homosexuality serves no evolutionary purpose for advancing humanity or promotion the continuation of its existence.

Hey, 6pack, thanks for taking the trouble to Remove All Doubt. There can be none anymore: you're a moron.

"Biblical truth regarding homosexality," what a fingerful of earwax. That's about as germane to the argument as raccons' dietary need for garlic. Shove that stuff.

What you call your free speech rights boils down to your hurt feelings at no longer being able to be both bigot and genteman, and that ship sailed long ago. The military exists within a democracy but it isn't one, and now it has a new "tyranny," which the great majority of its members will live with and some won't, to the benefit OF the military. Send the hicks back to BFE and make room for their gay betters.

And your slippery slope thing about pedophilia and NaAMBLA, well, I won't tell you what you can do with that but I'll spot you a tube of Vaseline to help you do it.

Even those of you who believe in evolution have to admit that homosexuality serves no evolutionary purpose for advancing humanity or promotion the continuation of its existence.

==

That's what comes of half an education. Obviously there *is* an evolutionary benefit to homosexuality else with would have died out thousands of years ago, attenuated away by homosexuals' fewer children.

Yours is a typically "American" understanding of evolution, which it seems you don't believe in anyway .. thereby marginalizing yourself to some intellectual backwater. Evolution is part of the very fabric of the cosmos and is observed at every scale from the Planck length to supergalaxies.

And keep your imaginary celestial playmate out of the discussion. I'll make a deal with you .. you don't talk about God and I won't reveal what it is about Asian men that turns me on.

Trying desperately to tie homosexuality and pedophilia together as linked somehow or the same is a fools errand.

How do you explain young girls who are sexually assaulted by male family members, or men who pursue relationships with under-age girls for sex? What about men who engage seek out under-age female prostitutes? Ever see any of the Dateline NBC "To Catch a Predator" episodes that were almost exclusively men seeking young girls for sex? Sure, there were also some pedophiles who were pursuing boys, but the point is that pedophilia is NOT symptomatic of homosexuality. What about the rash of female teachers in the last few years caught having lured young males into sexual relationships?

cathien9, may God bless you. I refuse to follow your example and resort to name calling and lewd jokes to rebut your comments. You called my arguments "a fingerful of earwax" yet you did not refute it. I am simply asserting my beliefs and am using the Bible as my evidence. I already voiced my beliefs a couple of hours earlier in this comment thread so I won't be redundant here. But I will say this; you have not given me a civilized reason for why I'm wrong and you're right. I assert that Christ is Lord and that what He demands of us in the Bible is Truth. I believe that anyone can be freed from their sins through accepting Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. I believe that includes homosexuality. I don't believe homosexuality is an orientation, I believe it's a deviant preference that goes against God's intentions for humanity. I have asserted all of this in a civilized manner and have not insulted you. I'm attempting to have a courteous, intellectual debate but you are making it clear that you will not comply with that. Again, God bless you.

caothein9 and suekzoo1, If you want to see the rationale behind my linking of homosexuality and pedophilia, go to this link http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/nine.php
I am asking as an intellectual that you hear and read my arguments as I have heard and read yours. I'm not sprouting out mindless babble. I have reasoning behind my arguments and beliefs.

The use of a few inappropriate capitalizations doesn't make my ears ring, sorry, and I would like it better if you resorted to name-calling than I like your insulting my intelligence with this Sunday School crap.

You "don't believe homosexuality is an orientation" and you "don't believe in evolution," yet you believe, in the complete absence of evidence, in a magical sky spirit who dictates everything that happens.

Yeah, right.

And since that nutty belief lies at the foundation of all your arguments, I reject them right out of the gate.

caothein9, you assert based your evolutionary argument regarding homosexuality on the belief that it's a gene. Your argument is flawed on several fronts. First, the studies that were interpreted as proving that homosexuality is genetic were, in fact, grossly misinterpreted.

In recent years homosexual researchers and philosophers are beginning to admit that there is no such thing as a "gay gene" that predisposes homosexuals to engage in sodomy. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has published a series of these admissions by homosexual researchers and philosophers in "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science." Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer has stated: "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay … I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." Simon LeVay, a homosexual researcher and activist studied the differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. He admits: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."

Lesbian author and activist Camille Paglia has stated: "Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm … Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction … No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous..."
Source: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/seven.php

Now for the other reason for why your evolutionary "die-out argument is flawed; if that was true, then look at sickle cell. Those who have the genes that causes sickle cell (a condition that's very detrimental to the human body and is recognized as a disease) have the gene because it protects them from malaria. This link discusses that www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant475/Sicklecell/Sicklecell.pdf
So that's an example of a gene that's detrimental to humanity having a benefit against another disease. So let's say you're right and homosexuality has a genetic base that evolution allowed for and is beneficial somehow. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is not a disease any more than sickle cell isn't.

I'm asserting that homosexuality is a spiritual disease, not something mental or genetic that shock therapy or medication can fix. Homosexuality is a sinful condition of the spirit that Christ can free a person from and I've seen it happen.

"And homosexuality IS part of normal sexuality, its constancy over time and culture proves that. Obviously there's is some evolutionary reason for it, otherwise the lesser reproductive rates of homosexuals would have attenuated it to zero thousands of years ago."

Idiotic drivel. The first sentence is a non sequitur and has no factual basis to begin with. The second . . . well it's an obvious non sequitur, too, but it's profoundly wishful thinking and biological nonsense. Do cleft lips or cancer serve some "evolutionary reason"? What psychological disorders have been common throughout history? The communist's "argument" boils down to the tautology that homosexuality is normal and beneficial (in some unknown way) because it exists.

"I assert that Christ is Lord and that what He demands of us in the Bible is Truth. I believe that anyone can be freed from their sins through accepting Christ as their personal Lord and Savior."

Yes, I saw your earlier old testament biblical references. And that's fine. You are certainly entitled to believe by faith your statements above. And that is fine, too. I really don't have any issue with any of that what so ever.

What is not fine is to impose those beliefs, and demand that everyone live by them, and expect the secular government of the United States to codify them in the law.

I gotta tell you, though, that link you provided to the Traditional Values Coalition...you know that the founder of that organization has financial ties to Jack Abramoff? Not exactly an untarnished reputation or without an agenda...

caothein9 you're persisting in the same irreverent manner as before? You assert I'm crazy and hallucinating yet you refuse to engage in a civilized intellectual debate with me. You're trying to provoke me to anger with inflammatory comments but it's not working. I'm trying to reach out to you as a Christian concerned for your spiritual condition and eternal residence. Accept Christ as your savior. He can heal you of your anger and confusion.
I'm providing scientific and empirical evidence to back my arguments up. Listen to reason. You assert I'm crazy for believing in God and yet you accept the notion that we evolved through random chance and natural selection over a period of millions of years from a microcosm? I have rational basis for my beliefs and you're trying to shut me up through insults and derogatory jokes. Just hear me out like I'm hearing you out.

Recruits will have to sign a statement that they accept homosexuality as normal and equivalent to normal sexuality."

You friggin doofus. Did such a thing happen in Israel? Canada? Britain? etc etc?

Is America uniquely a land of homophobic bigots?

Posted by: bernielatham | December 18, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

You moron, you don't get irony or parody?

As you should be able to see from the comments of your brethern above, the military will indeed have to forbid "homophobic" language (as if there were such a thing as "homophobia). It's not much of a satire to say they will have to issue a handbook.

As for signing a statement, it's one of only several choices. Since it is now defined as "bigotry" and "hatred" and is unacceptable not approve of homosexuality, the military will have to decide how aggressively to deal with the "homophobes" who. DADT for "homophobes" is one way. But since these people are now defined as equivalent to racist bigots and harmful to the military, DADT really wouldn't be good enough. Would it? How can you allow "homophobes" remain in the military? And to get them out, you only have a couple of options. You can require everyone to sign a statement or oath and/or you can investigate and pursue violations.

Oh, and your mention of Israel is of course a non sequitur, i.e., your favorite type of argument.

suekzoo1, some of my references were of New Testament books as well (i.e. Romans, Corinthians, Galatians).
You claimed I'm trying to impose my beliefs. I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm asserting my beliefs according to Free Speech.
. An organization having financial ties to Jack Abramoff does not call into question it's credibility. Many credible organizations had ties with Abramoff before his scandal came to light because of his reputation as a trustworthy business man. He deceived those organizations. Furthermore, you did not address the quotes I provided from homosexual researchers, philosophers, or Camile Paglia. You're trying to divert to the Ambrmoff connection to question the credibility of the source providing the quotes to ignore the facts that those statements were actually said and that the LGBT agenda is fickle and flawed.

Liberals, as I always say, aren't very good at logic. The claim that homosexuality is normal, healthy, etc., because it is unchosen is another glaring non sequitur. Innumerable types of behavior, thought, ideation, etc., are not chosen, in the same way, but nevertheless regarded by everyone as abnormal, deviant, immoral, destructive, etc. Indeed, refusing to act on such impulses, attactions, "orientations" is a key feature of morality and maturity accepted by just about everyone.

suekzoo1, I'm confused on where you're going with your question. A man cannot procreate by having sexual relations with another man and nor can a woman procreate by having sexual relations with another woman. If a homosexual has a child, it's done through sleeping with someone of the opposite sex or in-vitro fertilization.

Furthermore, Lesbian author and activist Camille Paglia recognize that homosexuals cannot procreate naturally when she stated: "Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm … Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction … No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous..."

Sure, there were also some pedophiles who were pursuing boys, but the point is that pedophilia is NOT symptomatic of homosexuality. What about the rash of female teachers in the last few years caught having lured young males into sexual relationships?

The pedophilia argument is just old, tired, and debunked.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 18, 2010 11:53 PM
--------

Sorry, but it's your viewpoint that is tired and debunked. The issue is not whether pedophilia and homosexuality are the same but whether or not they are both abnormalities. There's really no doubt about it. Neither is "normal" in any rational sense. Societies determine what is and is not acceptable and are responsible for setting their own limits. It seems homosexuality has become acceptable in our society. Not sure about bestiality. Anyone here like sheep?

Furthermore, suekzoo1, your attacking the credibility of Traditional Values on the basis of a financial linking with Abramoff is like attacking the credibility of Wikileaks on the basis of its connection with Julian Assange and his rape charges.

Furthermore, suekzoo1, your attacking the credibility of Traditional Values on the basis of a financial linking with Abramoff is like attacking the credibility of Wikileaks on the basis of its connection with Julian Assange and his rape charges. Address my actual arguments and the evidence I provided. Stop trying to divert the debate.

Sorry, but it's your viewpoint that is tired and debunked. The issue is not whether pedophilia and homosexuality are the same but whether or not they are both abnormalities. There's really no doubt about it. Neither is "normal" in any rational sense. Societies determine what is and is not acceptable and are responsible for setting their own limits. It seems homosexuality has become acceptable in our society. Not sure about bestiality. Anyone here like sheep?

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 12:56 AM
----------------------------------------
Bravo, Brigade. That was my whole point about the linking of gay rights groups with pedophile lobbyists as shown by Traditional Values at this link.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/nine.php

The liberals are just full of nonsequiturs today. Something about this issue just makes them completely irrational. Get a clue ddawd. Your race and history don't have a thing to do with the fact that all the bigotry and hatred is being exhibited by the very people like you doing all the accausing. They argument ant ever go awayy, because the truth wont go away.

6pack wrote,
"cathien9, may God bless you. I refuse to follow your example and resort to name calling and lewd jokes to rebut your comments."
-------

It's beginning to look like caothien9's ticket was punched before he was born. He is completely oblivious as to how an intelligent person can be a Christian. I'm sure he has no idea where the urge comes from to froth and hiss at the mere mention of God. Poor soul. He sees the universe as one big accident and himself as merely taking up space and using up perfectly good air---and I can almost agree with the latter point.

"The liberals are just full of nonsequiturs today. Something about this issue just makes them completely irrational. Get a clue ddawd. Your race and history don't have a thing to do with the fact that all the bigotry and hatred is being exhibited by the very people like you doing all the accausing. They argument ant ever go awayy, because the truth wont go away.

Posted by: quarterback1"

Good, go out and argue all the people who fought for civil rights are bigoted too.

But any day now, they will be remembered for the bigots they really are, right?

Brigade this is only one more sign of the end times. DADT getting repealed is no more surprising than one Californian judge issuing a ruling against the majority of Californian citizens that voted to keep Prop 8. suekzoo1 said I can't impose my beliefs on others and this is a democracy and yet a minority imposed their beliefs against the majority in California and the same is being done with repealing DADT. 65% of soldiers polled suggested they will not agree with repealing DADT. Look at the evidence I provided several hours earlier.

Why the fascination with Camile Paglia? She is not a medical doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist, medical or clinical researcher. She is a feminist philosopher. You seem to be hanging on that one quote of hers that is not linked to anything other than her opinion. Camile Paglia is also well known for saying audacious things. Some think of her as an attention seeker, and not much more. Sorry, you have to come up with more than Camile Paglia.

As to my question about procreation, the fact is that homosexuals have always procreated, and surely you recognize that. That said, a genetic basis for homosexuality can't be ruled out, because homosexuals reproduce and pass their genes on to their children.

I don't get your attempt to analogize sickle cell with homosexuality. People die from sickle cell, and you right note that it is a disease. Where is your evidence that anyone has ever died from the homo disease? Tying these two together seems like an awfully big stretch with no evidence presented.

You say, "Homosexuality is a sinful condition of the spirit that Christ can free a person from" which seems to me to be in direct conflict with Jesus' teaching to "judge not" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." You are free to believe as you wish, but you've also judged homosexuals as sinners. Is that your place?

Finally, "I'm asserting my beliefs according to Free Speech."

Huh? Free speech has no bearing on this comment board. First Amendment principles has to do with the government, not posters on a blog. If you read the little statement right above where you are typing your reply, the WaPo reserves the right to squelch comments, and that is their right since this is a commercial enterprise and NOT the government.

DDAWD you're doing the same thing that caothien9 and suekzoo1 did earlier; throwing insults and inflammatory comments at us instead of debating us in a civilized manner and with argumentation, evidence, and logic. Try refuting our arguments. Debate us. Stop the name-calling.

"Camping, 88, has scrutinized the Bible for almost 70 years and says he has developed a mathematical system to interpret prophecies hidden within the Good Book. One night a few years ago, Camping, a civil engineer by trade, crunched the numbers and was stunned at what he'd found: The world will end May 21, 2011."---SF Chronicle, 1 Jan 2010

suekzoo1 I also provided quotes from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has published a series of these admissions by homosexual researchers and philosophers in "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science." Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer has stated: "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay … I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." Simon LeVay, a homosexual researcher and activist studied the differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. He admits: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work." There's no evidence that there is a gay gene. Furthermore, you cannot deny that a person cannot in any way procreate through engaging in homosexual behavior. It's not possible.

You ask about my evidence of people dying from homosexuality. Four letters: AIDS. Then there's the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm not the one judging or classifying homosexuality as a sin. God classified it as a sin in Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians. I'm simply obeying and repeating the Word of the Ruler of Creation. I'm not judging homosexuals as being any worse than a heterosexual who engages in sexual relations outside the marriage bed. It's all sin. Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Look it up yourself. We all sinned against God. We are all worthy of hell. Yet Christ died for our sins so that we may reconnect with God and escape eternal torment.
Anything else?

What is it about you people and End Times? The worst of you can't wait to bring about the end of the world.

And quit whining about civility. You're telling perfectly fine people that they're sick and sinful based on a book of fables collected from the feverish imaginations of millennia-dead goat-herders who cowered in fear of lightning and who saw faces in clouds.

I don't care for your reasoning, which is fundamentally flawed. Like you say the repeal of DADT "imposes" others' beliefs .. that's garbage. What the repeal is to end the imposition of others' bigotry on people who've done nothing to deserve it.

And you have no right to expect your pompous insults and childish superstitions to be dignified with respectful discourse.

I'm a homosexual man. I have a partner of almost 20 years whom I love very much and am spending the rest of my life with. If you want to call us sick you can go eat what a dog leaves on the ground. I think you're sick and that Holy Spirit you're filled with represents a medical condition that you really ought to get treatment for.

You and QB and that Brigade sicko are on the losing side of history, and as you age you will live in a world increasingly alien and wrong to you, just like the racists of the 60s who had to ride the bus with black people, since someone saw fit to "impose" that on them too.

And yeah the free speech rights of soldiers and employees are ever more restricted and you can't call a coworker a f*ggot any more, just as you lost the "right" to call him a n*gger a few decades ago.

I'm not interested in anything you're selling, don't believe in God, believe Jesus was an historical figure of woman and man born, and nothing more.

May 21, 2011? Brigade, I find that dubious because Mark 13:32 says, "But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Anyone proposing to know when Christ will return is only trying to create sensation.

"If you want to call us sick you can go eat what a dog leaves on the ground. I think you're sick and that Holy Spirit you're filled with represents a medical condition that you really ought to get treatment for."
caothien9, you are persisting with the same insults. Please desist with this and debate me with logic. You and suekzoo1 have not addressed the quotes by homosexual researchers Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay. They admitted that there is no correlation between genetics and homosexuality. Furthermore, you're refusing to admit that Paglia specifically stated that the human body is built for procreation.

suekzoo1, how does the info about George Reker refute the info provided by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)? As I said earlier that's the same as questioning the credibility of the revelations from Wikileaks by saying that Julian Assange is being suspected of rape. Attacking individuals associated with an organization does not refute the information the organization reveals.

suekzoo1, heterosexuals have contracted aids through sleeping with homosexuals and through blood transfusions. Once that happened AIDS became viral. Neither you or caothien9 refuted my arguments. You attacked my sources, called me names, and paraphrased my arguments. Focus on the full content of what I'm saying.

They admitted that there is no correlation between genetics and homosexuality.

==

What would a "correlation between genetics and homosexuality" be?

Are you saying we choose it? Sorry but I have no recollection of making that choice and neither does anyone else. Given the smarmy bigotry coming from addled people like you, who would make that choice?

If it's your belief that being gay is some enticing temptation that most find the strength to resist .. well, let's just say that you're in no position to be admonishing anyone about logic.

This has been fun but I'd prefer someone with more on the ball to debate with.

And by the way, NARTH is vastly discredited scientifically, to say nothing of the bellylaugh of Reker getting caught with a male prostitute. Guess the temptation was too much for him, huh?

Go look at rentboy.com. The photos are explicit. ON PURPOSE. There is no way George Reker did not know what he was doing and getting into. George Reker does not dispute that he met his companion through that site. George Reker is a closeted homosexual that has spent his life attempting to put together dubious research to prove homosexuality is not normal. Why? Because he's in hiding!

George Reker claimed he needed a travel companion due to surgery, but photos are around showing him lifting heavy luggage.

Did he not have a nephew, family friend, cousin that could have traveled with him? Good lord.

If George Reker was pure as the driven snow, why did he resign from NARTH? Why did the Family Research Council seek to immediately cut their ties and distance themselves? Some friends he had....

Julian Assange has nothing to do with this discussion. That's you throwing a diversion that you call out on others.

caothien9, the homosexual researchers whose statements I provided earlier said there is no correlation between genetics and homosexuality. Find it yourself. Why do you persist with the insults. NARTH is not the source. Those researchers are. Look them up. Again, you're diverting the debate away from my arguments through inflammatory comments, lewd jokes, insults, and extrapolating conclusions through paraphrasing my arguments. Look at this entire comment thread between you and I. I have reached out to you and have asked for civilized debate and yet you refused to accept my offer. God bless you, man.

suekzoo1 I only provided the Assange example after you provided the Reker anecdote. Aside from what has went down with Reker and NARTH, you still haven't refuted the statements of the homosexual researchers. Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer has stated: "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay … I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." Simon LeVay, a homosexual researcher and activist studied the differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. He admits: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work." Focus on my arguments man. You can't refute them.

You haven't advanced any arguments, you wouldn't know what an argument was if it bit you on the leg. You've posted a bunch of links from sites that create apologia for bigots and swindle desperate people out of their money. Those conversion therapies are fraudulent.

You don't know anything about genetics; hell, by your own admission, you don't believe in evolution, so you're certainly not equipped to have any informed opinion about genetics.

caothien9, just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I don't know about it. I have formally studied evolution in my honors biology class in my junior year of high school. I have also studied evolution in Advanced Placement (AP) Biology in my senior year. Since you indicated that you've been in a relationship for 20 years, I can assume that means you're at least in your forties. With that, I can also assume you are not aware of how extensive and in-depth the education of high school classes are these days. I have read about genetics and read the reasoning of evolution. I know all about Mendel's research, Darwin's research with the finches, dominant and recessive genes, etc. I do know enough to have an educated opinion about genetics and any perceived correlation with homosexuality.

I provided not just links but quotes from homosexual researchers that you refuse to address. The reason I keep bringing the researchers up is because you won't refute their statements.

6pack: "I only provided the Assange example after you provided the Reker anecdote. Aside from what has went down with Reker and NARTH, you still haven't refuted the statements of the homosexual researchers."

I brought up Reker because NARTH is his organization and he was a powerful voice, and you're relying on them as unbaised authorities. Since he compiled a lot of their research, his homosexual activities have a direct bearing on the discussion. There is something very weird there. Something is very off.

I can emphatically say this: Human sexuality is multi-dimensional and in many ways mysterious. It's physical, emotional and psychological all rolled up together. To deny that homosexuality is ...or rather could be...partly due to genetics has not been "proven" per se, nor has it been disproven. The mere fact that about 1.5% of live births are children with ambiguous physical gender traits is enough for me to say that it certainly could be. And that, for me, is the place where I say I CANNOT JUDGE someone else's truth about their sexuality. I accept their word as their truth.

Mendel studied what we know now to be gene ferquencies and that has about as much to do with evolution as a cardboard folder of pennies has to do with funding analysis for a highway project. They're about four levels of complexity apart.

Darwin's finches are a matter of historical interest and do very little to illuminate a modern theory of evolution.

If homosexuality were caused by a gene or collection of genes that expressed it in the individual it would have died out long ago. Same for a mutation. Obviously that's wrong, it's much more deeply ingrained in our genetics than that, on the level of the frequency of left-handedness, a trait it has a lot in common with. It's too constant across time and culture for it to be a single gene, otherwise there would be cultures with none.

The genetics of homosexuality are probably connected to a uterine event, not to behavior genetics. And if it were a mutation that was being attenuated out then it would have been more common in the past.

I'd recommend a book but you wouldn't read it and of you were interested in learning anything you could have long ago.

Contemporaray American education stinks by the way. You're talking about high school?!? In America? Where most kids don't even learn algebra? Kids in Asia learn *calculus* in high school.

caothien9, I know enough about evolution to say that there are two types of evolution; microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is the basis and reasoning behind the mechanism of the immune system, without microevolution, we will not be able to build an immunity against diseases. Any educated Christian will tell you that microevolution is a fact of life. Macroevolution is an entirely different matter. Macroevolution is basically the theory that a creature can change from one species to another. That, I do not agree with as the scientific basis behind that theory is dubious. By the way, kids in America can learn calculus in high school as well. You attacked my intellect, education, and character yet you do not know me nor have you addressed the statements I provided by homosexual researchers. You keep saying that the constancy of homosexuality throughout all cultures and history proves it's normal. That's completely illogical. With the logic you're using, I could also claim, the constancy of sociopathic behavior proves its normalcy. I could go on and on.
suekzoo1, are you implying that homosexuality is a choice? The very fact that you're claiming sexuality is multidimensional is the basis of how pedophiles justify their sexual preferences. The LGBT community is inconsistent in its claims of sexuality. When they see that science does not prove their views, they create new theories. Leonard Sax, with The Montgomery Center for Research in Child and Adolescent Development, in "How Common Is Intersex? A Response to Anne Fausto-Sterling," in The Journal of Sex Research (Vol. 39, No. 3, 2002)proved that an estimate of 0.018% of infants who are actually hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites have a genetic disorder. he sexual continuum concept is not new. Sex researcher Alfred Kinsey invented what is known as the "Kinsey Scale" that places heterosexuality on one end of a sevenpoint scale and homosexuality on the other end. In between are varying degrees of either homosexual or heterosexual behaviors. Bisexuality is in the middle and was considered by Kinsey to be the ideal. Kinsey believed that all sexual behaviors were normal—even bestiality. Kinsey's co-author Wardell Pomeroy, for example, described the possibility that boys could have a loving relationship with farm animals in his 1981 book, Boys and Sex. Some boys, says Pomeroy, "...build a strong emotional attachment to a particular animal … a loving sexual relationship with an animal …"

Kinsey's sexual continuum scale is ideally suited to the transgender movement, which claims that maleness and femaleness are simply social constructions—not genetic realities. If sexual orientation is fluid, not fixed, then homosexuality, transgenderism, pedophilia, etc., are all due to freely chosen or compulsive behaviors—not genetics. They do not deserve protected class status because these behaviors are no different than smoking, alcoholism, drug addiction, or other self-destructive behaviors.

caothien9, I love how you only attack parts of my argument and just assert I'm wrong but provide no scientific rationale for why I'm wrong. I practically wrote an entire essay stating my beliefs, and to rebut me, you basically say, "You're wrong. Those arguments are phony. I've heard that before. You're a bigot." Can't you see your irrationality? Please, debate me as an intellectual. Don't brush me off as preaching "Sunday School stories" in a cop-out to avoid providing valid reasoning for your views. We've been going on like this for hours. I understand at this point that I'm not going to convince you of my beliefs but you need to be told that someday, we are all going to have to call Jesus Lord, either voluntary, or involuntary. Those who voluntarily call Christ Lord while alive in this world will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who don't, will have to when they die and meet Him and will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I know you believe that what I said is nonsense and all the other adjectives you used. At this point, I can only say God bless you and God loves you.
John 3:16

caothien9, I love how you only attack parts of my argument and just assert I'm wrong but provide no scientific rationale for why I'm wrong. I practically wrote an entire essay stating my beliefs, and to rebut me, you basically say, "You're wrong. Those arguments are phony. I've heard that before. You're a bigot." Can't you see your irrationality? Please, debate me as an intellectual. Don't brush me off as preaching "Sunday School stories" in a cop-out to avoid providing valid reasoning for your views. We've been going on like this for hours. I understand at this point that I'm not going to convince you of my beliefs but you need to be told that someday, we are all going to have to call Jesus Lord, either voluntary, or involuntary. Those who voluntarily call Christ Lord while alive in this world will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who don't, will have to when they die and meet Him and will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I know you believe that what I said is nonsense and all the other adjectives you used. At this point, I can only say God bless you and God loves you.
John 3:16

Those who voluntarily call Christ Lord while alive in this world will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who don't, will have to when they die and meet Him and will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I know you believe that what I said is nonsense

I'm not surprised. It's the fallacy that lies at the foot of all religious beliefs.

Reading your stuff about Christ as Lord and all that, it's clear that your're doing something with your brain that has a lot in common with master bation. You think about this stuff and you get all hyped up, enter some ecstatic state, start capitlizing words and using that phony antiquated biblespeak. Thee and thus and thine.

Here's my point: you guys look around and see a world with people in it and you go off on your ecstacy thing and then your mind kinda jumps the tracks and you tell yourself "this is all so beautful and organized and purposeful, it just has to be planned. God's love!! God's will!!" Well, see, that's like my license plate .. you have no idea, no basis for comparison, you don't know if this slaughterhouse of an existence is the shabbiest that could be or the very most perfect. It just is. And we happen to be here in a war-torn world on the brink of several kinds of collapse. You don't know if a planned world could be a lot better or a lot worse, but the simple fact of being here with the ability to perceive it and inclined to get emotional d ecstatic, you're seeing faces in the clouds and taking what was probably just a random passing car as some sort of divine plan.

It is wrong to engage in social engineering after one's party loses an election

The legitimacy is just not there.

The government has been HYJACKED. No one can trust these people ever again.

It is amazing that instead of finding ways to built his legitimay, Obama acts in ways which smell of lacking in legitimacy - Obama cares little if he has the support of the People.

Even, this debate the American people were being TOLD which surveys to believe - the entire debate (like partial birth abortion) was tinged with manipulation and outright lying. Finally, intimidation tactics and false charges have become commonplace. Obama is our fist Orwellian President.

RainForestRising,
Dont come in here proclaiming that you know what the military needs. You have never severed and will never serve. Somebody who spends his day and night on an internet message board is so detached from reality that your suggestions about what it needs and what it doesn't need is as valid as unicorns giving away Bill Gate's fortune.
You are a sad person.

And RealityChk,
This is an opinion section of the washington post. Not that you would know how a newspaper works or have any clue whatsoever what an opinion is being that you just repeat whatever stupidity that luminaries like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tell you.

Observations over time led many on the Fix to conclude that 37th AKA RainForest and many others is physically disabled. collecting disability, hence all the free time, and addicted to stimulants, He has been seen to be online over 24 hours at a stretch posting in many blogs at once,

It looks like the health care bill for 9/11 responders may get another vote. Gillibrand has been working with Collins to come up with an alternative plan to pay for it which may bring enough Republicans along for the ride.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We have the votes we need," Gillibrand said today at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "We've had indications from several Republicans that they very much want to vote for this bill.

"They would like to vote for a stand-alone bill," she said. "There is general agreement on a new pay-for that we're going to offer, so the hope is to get to the bill as soon as the START bill is completed."

Today Gillibrand said that the new off-set would be a 2 percent fee on procurement contracts for certain countries, combined with a visa fee."

RFR is just following the technique developed by the Dick Armey and friends' front-groups which their memo described as 'rock the townhall' - disrupt and inhibit communications amongst groups of individuals who might form a consensus which works against conservative interests. It's a technique which is anti-democracy and anti-liberty (they'd think of it as suppressing liberty and speech in order to protect liberty and speech, of course).

The "right to assembly" is intimately tied to the free speech principle. The right was codified in the B of R and constitution because tyrannies had (and always will) seek to police groups of citizens getting together. Together, they can organize and organized citizens are far more powerful than when dis-organized.

In other words, it isn't the "getting together" that's the important point (people getting together to make pies isn't a problem to a tyrant) it's that it is only when together (in person or in a discussion board etc) that they have the opportunity to coalesce and organize politically.

The sort of purposeful disruption that RFR and his type are doing has precisely the same goal and methodology of goons wading into a union meeting or a Third Reich edict banning Jews from congregating.

But they do it to protect the right to assembly and the right to unfettered speech, of course.

Chris you argued with Christians, again? I should hand you off to my mom and my sister, they have been trying to argue me back into the fold for forty years. Then there are the insufferable Muslims on my wife's side. Xmas scares them as much as homos in the shower terrifies Christians.

Meanwhile, it must be Sunday because Frank Rich published my ideas as his own, again. The Problem with America is not partisanship, the more the better, it is the juice, the pay to play crony capitalism, a corporatocracy than can only lead to plutocracy and oligarchy.

"Macroevolution is basically the theory that a creature can change from one species to another."

No, six pack (cool handle), that is not an accurate characterization. The difference from generation to generation is subtle. The difference after many generations is dramatic.

Yours is an unfortunate attitude. If you like the consequences of scientific inquiry (say, thin film transistors lead to the Xbox), it's great. If your beliefs are challenged, then you suddenly become an expert.

No, BB, w-p duality isn't dualistic. Particles as waves and particles as objects are two models, approximations of a more complete theory that "fall out" in their respective domains, just as Newtonian mechanics workds just fine so long as you're nowhere near the speed of light.

More accurately, they're like quantum mechanics and general relativity, both approximations in their respective scales of a more fundmamental and as yet undiscovered theory.

caothien9,a quick question; how can humans perceive purpose and meaning in a universe with no purpose or meaning?
FairlingtonBlade, subtle changes in a species' genetic code over many generations is microevolution. Saying that those variations will lead that species to change into a different species makes no sense whatsoever.

Repeal of DADT (10 USC 654) merely eliminates the ability to administra­tively dismiss homosexual­s from the service for BEING a homosexual­. Homosexual CONDUCT in the military is still prohibited by federal law (10 USC 925), as is Adultery under ( 10 USC 934).

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.